Rand Paul at CPAC: “The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered”

posted at 3:28 pm on March 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

If you can’t watch it all, pick it up at 16:00 as the big call for a new Republican Party begins. Very rarely do CPAC speeches surprise but Paul’s had a chance just because one never knows where his ongoing libertarian/conservative straddle might take him. An overt pitch to leave marijuana policy to the states? A reprise of what he told National Review two days ago about removing marriage from the tax code? Something about balancing the budget partly by adopting a more “modest” foreign policy? There are elements of all of that here but by and large he sticks to three big themes. One: Civil liberties and limiting presidential power, which was largely a rehash of his drone filibuster. (“Stand With Rand” t-shirts were plentiful outside the hall, I’m told.) Pay attention to the applause lines during this part. He got some cheers, but the reaction at a libertarian/Ron Paul event would have been raucous.

Two: Less spending. Straightforward and familiar, replete with calls to abolish the Department of Education and scrap the income tax code for a flat tax. He adds some humor to it, though, which is not something the Pauls are known for. You can see he’s getting more comfortable as a retail politician. Also noteworthy is the big applause line of this section — a call to end foreign aid to countries that burn the American flag. That’s a textbook example of how Rand is a savvier politician than his dad even when they share the same goal. Paul senior’s isolationism is framed as retreat, a strategic response to “blowback” from enemies antagonized by America’s shameful aggression overseas. Paul junior’s is framed as a matter of national pride. Why send money to Islamist cretins in Egypt when they openly loathe our country? Advantage: Junior.

Three, the key bit: Reorienting the party to appeal to the “Facebook generation.” He’s not radically libertarian here — decriminalizing nonviolent drug use is about as “extreme” as it gets, and he gives that just one line in passing — but the bit at the very end about standing for liberty in the economic “and the personal sphere” is significant. He’s not ready to fully engage with social conservatives about what that might mean just yet, but it’s coming. Which of course is why he frames this section not by stating his own convictions but by referencing young voters: The only way he’s going to get traditionalists to bend a little on things like weed and gay marriage is to apply some demographic pressure. Even Marco Rubio, who’s positioning himself as the young traditionalist alternative, slyly endorsed a federalist approach to gay marriage today in his speech rather than an amendment to ban the practice outright. Both would-be nominees know that a winning platform will look different from Romney’s. The winner is the guy who finds the sweet spot between too much and not enough.

I’ll leave you with this, just to flesh out Paul’s point about the “stale and moss-covered”: “Rasmussen Reports reveals that 67 percent of likely GOP voters have a favorable opinion of the first-term Kentucky senator. Just 52 percent view McCain favorably, and of that just 16 percent call their opinion ‘very favorable,’ said the pollster.”

between paul, cruz, and the new pope, i’m having a pretty cheerful week!

GhoulAid on March 14, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Just saw on the news that the new pope is refusing some of the trappings of office. In an age where sexual profligacy is only matched by socialist financial insanity, I must say I’m pretty darn pleased.

I really hope the whole GOP base can embrace liberty paired with responsibility. It’d be great to have a principle-driven party leader like Rand, even though some of the social cons might not be pleased with his stands on the role of government in social issues.

That’s a textbook example of how Rand is a savvier politician than his dad even when they share the same goal. Paul senior’s isolationism is framed as retreat, a strategic response to “blowback” from enemies antagonized by America’s shameful aggression overseas. Paul junior’s is framed as a matter of national pride. Why send money to Islamist cretins in Egypt when they openly loathe our country? Advantage: Junior.

Paul has a real shot here at selling libertarianism to conservatives. Now, he just needs to get elected president.

I guess we have to zero out our domestic spending, then, right? We do allow protestors to burn the American flag, don’t we?

The dirty little secret is that Paul doesn’t just oppose foreign aid, he opposes any sort of meaningful foreign policy. He’s never rejected or repudiated Dad’s isolationist views – which, had they been implemented at the end of World War II, would have led to a Soviet America and Soviet Europe today.

Neither has he repudiated the brown-shirted supporters of his father. He was campaign manager of Ron’s runs and never sought to return the donations of white supremacists or publishers of antisemitic literature.

OT: I had CPAC on C-SPAN in the background. They ran some stupid contest between Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson. Then Perry spoke. He was followed by Tim Scott of SC. Immediately after the introduction–and I mean IMMEDIATELY–C-SPAN halted its coverage to cut away to some boring House speeches about a reauthorization of a useless jobs act.

2. That he really IS all about the “moral libertarianism.” The only thing keeping the leftists at bay from throwing Christians in jail has been a pretty engaged social conservative movement. If Rand is proposing to just give up on social issues then there won’t BE an America for long.

Gay marriage and drug legalization is just another plank in the “destroying personal responsibility” plank of the left. Really, any severely addictive behavior or substance should be resisted, as it limits actual ability to choose.

between paul, cruz, and the new pope, i’m having a pretty cheerful week!

GhoulAid on March 14, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Just saw on the news that the new pope is refusing some of the trappings of office. In an age where sexual profligacy is only matched by socialist financial insanity, I must say I’m pretty darn pleased.

Paul has a real shot here at selling libertarianism to conservatives. Now, he just needs to get elected president.

Doomberg on March 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Except that he’s not even talking about libertarianism. All of his publicly stated policy positions thus far have been what we used to call “principled conservatism.” If being considered “conservative” means I have to kowtow to the likes of Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, I don’t want to be part of “the conservative movement” anymore.

There are no heroes in politics. Rand Paul has been raised in the political class and he’s better at the dance than his father. He’s essentially selling libertarianism as conservatism. These are two distinctly separate ideologies. Though they share some similar goals they cannot be melded together to form one base. Marijuana and gay marriage are comparatively trivial issues in light of matters like foreign affairs, trade, the economy, and the least of the impediments to the success of the GOP.

The infighting in the party is detrimental to the ultimate success of the party. It lends the appearance that we cannot agree on substantive matters and, thus, since we cannot field leaders within out own party, cannot hope to lead the nation.

A ‘big tent’ is of no value if it is filled with those who are incapable of working together to achieve a common goal.

Something about balancing the budget partly by adopting a more “modest” foreign policy?

Maybe something along the lines of not throwing away the lives and limbs of so many of America’s troops to stand in between waring Muslims in so many crap hole Islamic countries just because some people get their rocks off from it and others get richer from it.

That’s a textbook example of how Rand is a savvier politician than his dad even when they share the same goal. Paul senior’s isolationism is framed as retreat, a strategic response to “blowback” from enemies antagonized by America’s shameful aggression overseas. Paul junior’s is framed as a matter of national pride. Why send money to Islamist cretins in Egypt when they openly loathe our country? Advantage: Junior.

Oh I am so archiving this. Nail, head, sledgehammer!

I have only one small quibble: Rand Paul has the advantage of riding a wave of public sentiment against the historically (and otherwise) ignorant hardcore NeoCons after their Mom-God-apple pie fantasies have utterly failed to produce results in TWO occupied nations.

For basically Ron’s entire career there was no single event to point to that showed interventionalism is a complete waste of lives and money. Now there are several, and Rand is getting a MAJOR boost from this.

These will be Rand Paul’s foreign policy principles, which are basically the opposite of NcCain’s, Graham’s and Rubio’s.

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.

4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.

I’m all for a “modest” foreign policy. Although, I’d call it a “cheapskate” foreign policy.

Something akin to Rush Limbaugh’s famous “International Excrement List,” so called because you can’t say “International Sh-t List” on the radio.

If a country badmouths us or otherwise gives us grief, they are cut off. Not a dime until they publicly apologize and demonstrate that apology with good behavior.

I’d go a step further. You get whatever food and medicine we can spare. No weapons. No jets. No technology. You want expensive toys that make things go bump in the night, you pay for their development yourself.

But the youth voted for Obama, who fed them a “lot of crap”.
Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Yep. The “Facebook” generation sucks. They do want free weed though and Paul is hoping they can help put him in the White House.

I like Rand. I like his ideas, but I don’t like his electoral chances. A very small minority of people actually care about “freedom”. They want free stuff. They want to feel good about themselves voting for some oppressed minority person. They want to be well-liked by their peers. They want to redistribute wealth. They want to cry about “white privilege”.

I like Rand. I like his ideas, but I don’t like his electoral chances. A very small minority of people actually care about “freedom”. They want free stuff. They want to feel good about themselves voting for some oppressed minority person. They want to be well-liked by their peers. They want to redistribute wealth. They want to cry about “white privilege”.

In short, this is not the electorate we’re looking for.

happytobehere on March 14, 2013 at 4:18 PM

…

If I say that Hot Air never produces anything of value, remind me of this quote and I’ll self-ban for a week.

That’s a textbook example of how Rand is a savvier politician than his dad even when they share the same goal. Paul senior’s isolationism is framed as retreat, a strategic response to “blowback” from enemies antagonized by America’s shameful aggression overseas. Paul junior’s is framed as a matter of national pride. Why send money to Islamist cretins in Egypt when they openly loathe our country? Advantage: Junior.

Oh I am so archiving this. Nail, head, sledgehammer!

I have only one small quibble: Rand Paul has the advantage of riding a wave of public sentiment against the historically (and otherwise) ignorant hardcore NeoCons after their Mom-God-apple pie fantasies have utterly failed to produce results in TWO occupied nations.

For basically Ron’s entire career there was no single event to point to that showed interventionalism is a complete waste of lives and money. Now there are several, and Rand is getting a MAJOR boost from this.

MelonCollie on March 14, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Isolationism from what I’ve seen (my disclaimer) hasn’t been properly framed as one of “can’t afford” and “for everyone”. It becomes an issue when it seems that one party is singled out to be “isolated”, which is usually Israel.

If it’s presented in the way Paul is here – why fund people who are burning our flag along with the idea that WE ARE BROKE and that it is not just Israel, but all, then it may not be the negative word it is now.

And Rand Paul is still a member of the GOP which is part of the problem.

gryphon202 on March 14, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Yep.

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM

One thing people forget is that liberals are patient. They have sat around and quietly infiltrated and propagandized all corners of our lives and culture.

Consider that perhaps Paul and others like him are doing the same – they are infiltrating the GOP, using the structure already there which, admittedly, is decent. This is rather than starting from scratch without the resources the GOP has.

Why not assist in the infiltration if Paul offers what you are looking for?

Isolationism from what I’ve seen (my disclaimer) hasn’t been properly framed as one of “can’t afford” and “for everyone”. It becomes an issue when it seems that one party is singled out to be “isolated”, which is usually Israel.

If it’s presented in the way Paul is here – why fund people who are burning our flag along with the idea that WE ARE BROKE and that it is not just Israel, but all, then it may not be the negative word it is now.

kim roy on March 14, 2013 at 4:39 PM

+100!

For decades, ‘isolationism’ has been intentionally mislabeled as supposedly being the ideology of wanna-be [email protected] with Ron as the leader. I’m sure in part because the industries that supply our military (legitimately) see it as a threat. I’ve seen that happen right here and taken fire for precisely this reason.

Unfortunately, professional or unprofessional agitprop to the contrary, Ron didn’t do as good of a job presenting it as he could have. And also he had no single massive failure of the ideology to point to and say “this is why X doesn’t work!”

But Rand is a better orator, he DOES have specific situations to point to, and most Americans are just plain sick of hardcore NeoCons trying to frighten them into an endless war with a major religion when the nation is run by idiot liberals and trillions past broke. It’s a whole new ballgame…the question is will it make a difference at this point?

Consider that perhaps Paul and others like him are doing the same – they are infiltrating the GOP, using the structure already there….

kim roy on March 14, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Yeah, like Bachmann did. Where is she now? *looks around*

ddrintn on March 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Are you really trying to put Bachmann on Paul’s level ideology-wise?

Try reading what I wrote rather than jerking your knee. Allah’s right – Paul is trying to massage libertarianism/constitutionalism into a brand of conservatism that will appeal to as many people as possible. He appears to be a true believer. We’ll have to see if really is over time.

Do you disagree with what I wrote regarding infiltration and what Allah wrote? And what the heck does Bachmann have to do with any of this???

Rand Paul is also weak on amnesty. I applaud him for the fight he is leading bvut I don’t want him to be President.

bw222 on March 14, 2013 at 4:58 PM

As opposed to Obama, I suppose. Sheesh.

That said, I’m not happy with his stance on amnesty and would like to know exactly why he’s taking that position. My educated guess is that he’s trying to avoid the minefield of liberal “racist” claims until he absolutely has to, but I can’t confirm that beyond doubt.

But Rand is a better orator, he DOES have specific situations to point to, and most Americans are just plain sick of hardcore NeoCons trying to frighten them into an endless war with a major religion when the nation is run by idiot liberals and trillions past broke. It’s a whole new ballgame…the question is will it make a difference at this point?

MelonCollie on March 14, 2013 at 4:45 PM

We’ll have to see. It’s been a lot of years without any “treasure” at the end of the effort and just a large bill. People might just out of weariness want out.

It’s going to be difficult though after eight years of Obama’s idiocy and what kind of mess he’s going to leave.

I do agree that Ron Paul was terrible with explaining his position regarding foreign policy and I’m being charitable here. Maybe some of it is timing and if so then Paul junior will get the benefit of that. Plus, as you said, he’s just better at getting the message out and more savvy media-wise.

“…most Americans are just plain sick of hardcore NeoCons trying to frighten them into an endless war with a major religion…”

Without regard to “Neocons” or their efforts the fact is that Islam is not a religion in the sense that most Westerners think of religion. It is a barbaric and totalitarian political order whose adherents have been at war with the entire remainder of humanity for fourteen centuries.

Our country did not even exist for the first eleven centuries of this conflict, but the barbarians attacked us shortly after our country was founded. Fortunately our forefathers took a far more realistic view of the threat posed by the Islamists and dealt with them accordingly. We should be so lucky.

Whether we like it or not, we are at war with a major “religion”. Anyone who thinks turning to neo-isolationism will result in the Islamists ending their war with the world of the infidels or at least us is ignoring thousands of years of history.

Whether we like it or not, we are at war with a major “religion”. Anyone who thinks turning to neo-isolationism will result in the Islamists ending their war with the world of the infidels or at least us is ignoring thousands of years of history.

novaculus on March 14, 2013 at 5:10 PM

I agree. But it’s not so much a military war anymore. It’s a legal, cultural, academic and litigatory war within our country and internationally. If we can’t say the word “jihadist” within our Pentagon parlance, why are we even fighting them, or how do we effectively prosecute such a war overseas? The “neocons” have lost moral credibility by generally ignoring, neglecting or outright abandoning these fronts. Thus we have Pamela Gellar denied access to CPAC.

What a battle between Paul and Rubio of who will be the future President … not of the United States of course (for neither can beat President Hillary Clinton ) or any Democrat) but of CPAC and Hot Air … how exciting… and the fervor in the sad conservative echo chamber builds … well maybe Hannity will throw his hat in to be your President too… after all his Stop Obama Express worked so well the last two presidential elections …

What a battle between Paul and Rubio of who will be the future President … not of the United States of course (for neither can beat President Hillary Clinton ) or any Democrat) but of CPAC and Hot Air … how exciting… and the fervor in the sad conservative echo chamber builds … well maybe Hannity will throw his hat in to be your President too… after all his Stop Obama Express worked so well the last two presidential elections …

I like Rand. I like his ideas, but I don’t like his electoral chances. A very small minority of people actually care about “freedom”. They want free stuff. They want to feel good about themselves voting for some oppressed minority person. They want to be well-liked by their peers. They want to redistribute wealth. They want to cry about “white privilege”.

In short, this is not the electorate we’re looking for.

happytobehere on March 14, 2013 at 4:18 PM

I agree, but that “small minority” is keeping the lights on while cities like Atlanta, Detroit, Oakland, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum are going under. These folks, the Democrats, are not that bright, not that strong, and are really on borrowed time at this rate. You can only defy reality for so long until it comes crashing down — Gorbachev can attest to this as he has dealt with a similar collapse.

And eventually the “small minority” — the thinkers, the producers, the people of action — become the rulers while all the turds go the way of the dinosaur and abolish themselves under the weight of their own folly.

Ask yourself: Who of sound mind and reason wants to fight, die, live, and serve Detroit? Who would do likewise for the United States of Detroit? Is such a social contract sustainable? No… no it isn’t.

Ask yourself: Who of sound mind and reason wants to fight, die, live, and serve Detroit? Who would do likewise for the United States of Detroit? Is such a social contract sustainable? No… no it isn’t.
Punchenko on March 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM

I think those are some excellent points. And I agree. The GOP could rise from the ashes after the fall of the Republic.

I really hope the whole GOP base can embrace liberty paired with responsibility. It’d be great to have a principle-driven party leader like Rand, even though some of the social cons might not be pleased with his stands on the role of government in social issues.

Clark1 on March 14, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Social Conservatives aren’t the problem, they make up the base of the GOP and have shown they are willing to support moderates like Romney and McCain, it is the neo-con hawks who are going to be the problem. They are well funded and make up the establishment concentrated in D.C., we saw a hint of their disdain for Rand watching McCain and Graham after the filibuster and they will not back off.

Really? Okay. Who is the leader of the war effort aimed against us? Who is the chief executive? What is their capitol? Who are their ambassadors?

JohnGalt23 on March 14, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Yes.
Mohammed.
Mohammed.
It’s a Pan-Islamic identity. But for now, Mecca and Medina will do.
They have lots of ambassadors. Some died flying planes into our buildings.

happytobehere on March 14, 2013 at 5:41 PM

lol

I have lost my taste for constant interventionism and nation bulding in the name of this perpetual war on terror, but Rand Paul would do well to avoid the foolish rhetoric you quoted above and recognize that there is a threat out there. Fortunately he has done just this in other speeches I have listened to such as the one at the Heritage Foundation.